Sony Cyber-shot RX10 IV sample gallery updated

Where better to take a 24-600mm equivalent superzoom than on a trip to the mountains? With a zoom range ideal for travel, our Sony RX10 IV review unit headed north to Whistler, BC almost as soon as it arrived. Take a look at our expanded sample gallery.

Wow. I'm really impressed by the high quality of the images coming out of the RX10 Mk IV. It's clear that Sony's use of a new and improved sensor has really paid off, because the sample images absolutely blow away the ones that come from the RX10 MkIII.

Looking at these images, you'd never know they came from a camera with a 1" sensor.

Too bad I live in Canada and don't have the $2500 needed to buy a RX10 IV.

No comparison. I use an RX100ii which has the same sensor and I like it for its very small size and build quality, but 1" sensors (which are actually smaller) just can't capture the light the way a 24-mpx APS-C or full frame. Know what you want to use the camera for. if you want great enlargements 11x14 and bigger, this isn't the camera for you. For travel pics and events, it would be useful, but really too costly for what you are getting. Better to get a lightweight APS-C and a nice lightweight zoom. More options. My backup body is a Nikon D5500 and I carry one of two zooms when I'm using it (Tokina 11-17mm or Nikon 55-300mm). For more serious work, I'd go with a full frame or possibly Sony's top mirrorless.Good luck with your decision.

I would save +/- 200$ at B&H with currency exange... If they ship it here. It would cost more if I drive there :P So my best option is a delivery from B&H for something around 2,300$ ... still a very high price! I may wait to April 2018 in hope the price drops a bit. (i dont take much pictures during winter time)

so this is aps-c image class LOL ...not even close canon 350D quality but versality is good, I had G3x and I have fz1000 so i waiting for test in dpreview this model, fz1000 have better and clear menu system and very good phone app for +

We rarely see 'weather-sealing' guaranteed because if you think about it, and the number of conditions that could be classed as 'weather', it would be impossible to guarantee.

In the real world, 'weather-sealing' means that the manufacturer has introduced a degree of environmental sealing to key points of ingress - around the lens throat, major seams and seals, control points etc. It should not be taken to mean that dust or moisture is guaranteed never to end up inside the equipment if exposed to the right (or rather wrong) conditions.

Hi Barney - point taken, but there seem to be widely varying standards - recently I’ve seen several cameras from 2 manufacturers touted to be ‘dust and weather resistant’ which don’t even have a rubber seal around the battery compartment, this isn’t really convincing.

Look at any Olympus or Pentax camera (for example) which tout ‘weather resistance’ and you can see the care taken with seals on doors etc. etc. You can wash their cameras under a tap . . .. . .

It seems to me that saying “it’s weather resistant” is enough - you don’t have to prove it, and you don’t have to put your money where your mouth is, but some manufacturers really take it seriously . . . And some others really take the mickey

. . . Worth mentioning that I don’t have a Pentax or Olympus camera, so I’m not being partisan here

Not a pro-level camera. You cannot get a fully dust and waterproof camera for that price or type of camera. But if you really like it, just keep a resealable large plastic food bag with you for protection from too much water or dust.

Many of these comments are silly at best. Of course a 1" sensor < M43 < APS-C < FF. The laws of physics have not been repealed. This camera is *not* intended to replace a bunch of F2.8 primes on a D5.Having owned an early ancestor of this camera, what it does do is allow one camera and one lens to accomplish an amazing number of tasks well enough in a way you just are not going to do with "better" equipment unless you are being paid or really just want to haul a huge heavy case full of gear everywhere you go and even then the bird will come by when you have your 24mm lens on and the puppy climbs on the baby when you have the 600mm lens on and you miss those shots anyway.The closest I can figure you can get is a G85 with a 14-140mm on and my impression from samples is it wouldn't be all that much better.

Very well said,I found that lugging a bunch of lenses completely ruins the vacation experience for me. I want a nice camera that I can grab and shoot a quick pic, with big SLR and a bunch of lenses I feel like a news reporter (a JOB not vacation).

Just because it can go to ISO 12800, doesn't mean one should, they are appalling. You would only go above ISO 3200 in an emergency and even ISO 3200 is not much chop. Looks good at ISO 1600 though. A9 utterly destroys this at high ISO.

These pictures are not much in favor of the RX10 IV. Especially Nr. 6 which serves as "title image". The clouds are burnt out as if overexposed 2 stops and tried to salvage afterwards. Others look like oversharpened and harsh midday sun makes pictures look bad.

Since I use an RX100 for a few years now I know that the Sony 1" sensors can do better then that. Of course a DSLR makes better images, but I think this camera can do almost everything most people need. I am considering trading all my mFT gear for this camera and only keep the "big" DSLR. Unfortunately, the price is quite prohibitive.

When a product is 55% more expensive, SRP wise, than its competitor of 3 and 1,5 years ago respectively, it's silly overpriced. Especially if it is offering arguably usable improvements for this very niche. I like its performance as I like the smart segment of bridge cams which they practically cover all the needs of an enthusiast, but my likes tend to an end when it asks some $600 more than its rivals.

@tkbslcCompared to a Cannon G3X possibly which for all its quirks will probably suffice for many of more limited means. It is a good idea to at least remember in all of DPRs giddy new Sony new release euphoria that 24-600 equivalent on a 1" sensor is not a Sony innovation. One advantage is Canon have managed to squeeze the lens in to a considerably more compact form factor even allowing for the lack of EVF.

@tblslcThe whole RX10 III/IV is clunky and heavy, look at the G3X side by side with an RX10 III on camerasize.com and Canon has done a remarkable job with the lens. The G3X has a degree of sealing against dust and weather and at £650 currently is very good value. I am not saying it is the equal of the RX10 III or IV but Sony at twice the price of the Canon are certainly not giving any goodies away. You takes your choice but worth a look if you are not a rich boy and cannot afford the best.

If one were to go on Flickr they would quickly realize that these shots are far from the best representation this camera is capable of let alone under higher ISO settings. I've had the FZ1000 and while it out performed the focus of the MkIII it won't hold a candle to the MkIV, let alone the shear sharpness of the lens from one end to the other. The build quality and others simply put it in another realm. I'm looking forward to my hands on one a week from today.

They sure do, all the more reason to feel (as most reviewers have) that the MkIII was superior to end results than a FZ1000. Sure you can argue about the focus speeds, but in the end it's all about the files quality. In THAT regard there was little doubt the FZ fell a bit short of the RX.

The raw file size of the Panasonic is a bit bigger. And Panasonic usually gets more higher ISO performance out of the the same Sony sensor. Pana's colour is better, even if you shoot raw with the Sony.

Also of course the FZ2500 (2000 in some markets) is the more direct competition with the Sony RX10 III.

I like a lot about this camera, but honestly my FZ1000 currently $1000 cheaper and subjectively in my opinon nearly as good. The extra 200mm would be nice, but rarely needed for me. I would like the water resistance, but not like the extra weight. The FZ1000 is nice and light for travel and hikes.

I've never seen a camera that I couldn't get used to the "Experience and handling" within a week or 2. It's not like Sony put their shutter button on the bottom and the menus are only in ancient greek or something.

I almost bought the first version but I can't get past the power zoom, why can't they make them mechanical? How does it do in low light with the small sensor compared to a crop or full frame sensor? I'm thinking I'll stick with my SL2, it's small, light and half the price, paired with the 55-250 stm is a nice travel camera, need wide, I can put the 10-18 in my pocket or just use my phone.

What are you talking about? The RX10 (any of them) destroy the R1 in every way. The lens on the RX10 is sharper, and the sensor has more detail, less noise, and massively more DR. The R1 may have been APS-C, but 12 years is an eon in sensor years.

I have one, this is a spot on observation. It ramps ISO fast (as expected) and falls outside of that sweet area surprisingly fast if you are spoiled by APS-C or Full Frame. That said, the quality is fantastic for nearly everyone looking at it. If your idea of photography is admiring the details of an image on a 4k large monitor, it might not be your thing. It is a great all arounder if lighting is good.

Any lightweight combo covering a similar zoom range on APS-C or Full frame is going to have a very slow aperture. The RX10 has a fast f2.4-4 lens. So while you may be more comfortable at ISO 3200-6400 on a larger sensor, you are more likely to have to be there.

Nice images, the owl is particularly handsome......but with these enormous zoom ranges it would be helpful to have a chart that shows how sharpness changes with focal length—i.e. which focal lengths are sharpest so that the camera can be used to its best advantage.At the same time it sounds like it would be a giant pain for whoever has to compile it, so never mind .

I owned the RX10iii and now replaced it with the iv. I can tell you the sharpness of the entire zoom range is simply stunning. The lens is pin sharp at 600mm wide open at F4. No need to stop down like you do with FF lenses to get that sweet spot. That's partly why the advantages of APS-C and FF aren't as big as you might think. It defies logic that a lens with such a huge zoom range can be so good.

Be careful, that would require some rational thought from some gearheads. I have suggested double-blind tests in more than one post.I think that the 1" sensor would hold up ok up to 8"x12" prints, if you do not look to close. but I doubt that you will see any pro using one.

@cgarrard - Of course it looks good on your wall by itself with no other picture next to it shot with something better. My old T-shirt looks pretty good by itself too. Everything looks good in a vacuum by itself.

@cgarrard - If that picture looks the same or better than the same picture by APS-C, than I would have your eye site checked.Sometimes photo content can trump technical quality, but in my comparison, I think that is too wide of a spread.

The pics looks good when you look at them at 50% but when zoomed in at 100% you see it's a 1" sensor.. lots of noise and buttery pixels. You dont have room to crop to closeup images afterward, you fall into the buttery pixels quickly.

Its still is a very interesting camera, but for posting images on the internet only, where the images are downsized.

@ Ben ... Hogwash! You can go larger than 8x10 if you're evaluating the print at normal viewing distance instead pixel peeping it with your nose an inch away. Heck, I've got a 20 x 32 inch print hanging in my living room that people gawk at and it came from a Canon G11 (1/1.7" sensor). The thing to remember is that most people don't look at a photo print with their nose an inch away from the print.

It's important to note that a lot of these pictures were shot at surprisingly high ISO values... several at 2000, 4000, even 6400. At those values, yes, you're really pushing the limits of being printable at larger sizes. But at anything ISO 800 or less, the 1" sensors are clean enough for 24 x 36, maybe even larger.

I know its a quality camera and the image quality is good. But its still a 1" sensor, you see the big difference when you compare with a APS-C. Like I said, when zoomed-in at 100%, otherwise it looks great downsized on screen. I may buy it myself, so I dont totally hate it ;-)

@ Ben ... Obviously, some compromises have to be made if one desires a DSLR with a lens that spans the FF equivalent of 24mm to 600mm in a relatively lightweight and affordable package. Clearly, the RX-10 iii & iv are not "all-purpose for every situation and photographer" cameras.

I own the RX-10 i and, while I would've liked a 300mm length a few times, the truth is that 24-200 lens more than meets my needs 99% of the time. How many photographers can honestly say the camera they're using meets their needs 99% of the time?

I've been a photo geek enthusiast for about 7 yrs and this was the exact type of camera that I was looking for back then.. Finally a decent zoom with great focus ability... just 2 more things would make it a dream camera , built in nd and a swivel screen.. I had the m3 and the lense was so sharp it even beat out my canon 7dm2 with the coveted 70-200 2.8....

RX10 and MkII had ND filter built in. The III and IV do not. One would presume the different optical design precludes them from fitting one... or they decided that it might eat into too many camcorder sales.

Well, it can't replace my ILC because it isn't versatile enough. The focal length range isn't wide enough, the lens isn't fast enough, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder and the battery life is too short. So it's just a supplement for limited situations. I already have a hyperzoom for that, for which I payed $129. This one is better in most ways, but it's still just a supplement to be used in certain, relatively moderate situations. And that makes it worth about $400-$500 to me - more than my current hyperzoom, but no where near what it actually costs.

There is no doubt it's a versatile camera with a good lens. But the comparison to DSLR ends the second you try cropping or printing large. This does not detract from the camera. As someone said above, make sure you do your cropping in the viewfinder.

1" is smaller than an APS-c dSLR, but it's still a decent sized sensor, and you can both crop and print large, just under a narrower range of situations. For me the comparison to a dSLR ends when you need an f/2.8, f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens, or when you need either wider (I have two lenses than go wider than 24mm equivalent) or longer (I have two lenses that go longer than 600mm equivalent).

This is why I constantly argue against these deceptive manufacturers using equivalents for focal length but not for f/stop. It confuses most consumers. It started with, what was it, the FZ10, claiming something like 400mm and f/2.8?

For this "1 inch" sensor, shot wide, this camera has an f/2.8. There's no equivalent about it, unless you're limiting your comment to DoF.

As for "light gathering" that's highly dependent on things like the sensor design--which is independent of the f/stop number. In other words, light gathering is not simply the f/stop number, and pretending it is says you don't care about this kind of thing.

I'm getting sick of explaining equivalence to people after doing it a thousand times over the last 10+ years.

It is NOT a 600mm/4. It's a 220mm/4 (it says so on the front). Since the sensor is smaller than a 35mm sensor, that lens does the exact same thing for that smaller sensor as a 600mm/10.9 lens does for a 35mm sensor. They have the same angle of view, total light gathering, diffraction effects and every other important parameter.

Same with wide end - 8.8/2.4, not 24/2.4. Equivalent to a 24/6.5 on a full frame camera.

And one of the reasons you're likely sickening is you're wrong about a goodly part of it.

It's absolutely a 220mm/f4.0 for purposes of DoF.

However, total light gathering is very sensor, or film, dependent. Just like as your Nikon from 1974 aged you weren't stuck with using 1974 Kodak 400 ASA colour film. Film improved, and sensors do today--read/register/gather light better.

Now one does have to buy a new camera in the digital era, so that's unlike the Nikon SLR analogy.

Diffraction limits is a real thing, but it's not real material in this situation.

Howard you don't know what you're talking about. Light gathering is just about the lens. Total system performance has sensor efficiency in it but modern sensors of similar generations are all about the same so it's really just about light gathering by the lens. And light gathering goes just like I said it does. A 72/2.8 doesn't magically match the performance of a 400/2.8 just because you make the sensor behind it smaller. I can't believe I even have to say that.

Look, everything I said is true. DPReview even has an article confirming it. Look it up and educate yourself.

HAR: I think you already know this but, this so called, 1 inch sensor 116mm2 vs 860mm2 for FF. That’s approximately 641% larger. Yet the small sensor has 24 million pixels which is approximately half that of the a7rm2. So if you reduce the area by 86 1/2% you’re going to need smaller pixels. Smaller pixels hold less data. Less data equals less detail. Since this camera is reputed to have a very sharp lens, it won’t make much difference whether you try to enlarge at the middle or elsewhere.

That's your problem right there: that statement is wrong. A smaller pixel will have a lower signal-to-noise ratio than a larger one, which is why bigger sensors have better noise performance, but it will hold exactly the same amount of detail - one pixel - as the bigger one. 20MP is 20MP, however big the sensor (also, pixels don't hold "data" at all; they're analog. The analog signal only becomes data once it's been digitised).

Smaller sensors lose "detail" compared to bigger ones, especially at higher ISOs, because of a) their lower signal-to-noise ratio and its effect on apparent detail and b) the processing the camera manufacturers do to reduce it. Some are much better at this than others; Sony are arguably not the best, but that's a whole 'nother argument for the fanboys. ;-)

The data the sensor records being useful is highly dependent on the ISO (gain) setting.

Shooting this sensor at say ISO 400 records plenty of detail, now sure a bigger 20MP sensor, like that in the Nikon D500, can be shot at much higher ISOs and still record the same detail.

Also "detail", like arm hairs, really isn't important for most applications. In many cases 7-10MP can produce a highly detailed image capable of being printed well up to at least 12 inches by 18 inches.

Now the Nikon D500 does shoot 14bit raws, while this Sony shoots likely 12 bit raws, so there are other things going on.

More about gear in this article

In September we met Apple's newest smartphones, found out what it looks like when you don't use a solar filter to photograph the eclipse, and bid a fond farewell to Cassini as it transmitted its last images of Saturn.

For the past few weeks we've been running a series of polls to find out what you - our readers - think of the major product releases of 2017. It's time to announce the winners of the first round of voting!

It's the most wonderful time of the year – time to vote for your favorite cameras and lenses in our year-end Readers' Choice Awards! 2017 was a good year for compact cameras – vote now for your favorites!

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

At this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, we sat down with senior executives from several major manufacturers, including Canon. Topics of conversation included Canon's ambitions for high-end mirrorless cameras, and the importance of responding to the demands of the smartphone generation.

We were recently able to follow local frame builder Max Kullaway as he created one of his AirLandSea bikes. Here are our picks of the photos we got, as the project progressed from bare tubes all the way to rideable bicycle.

On paper, the Sony a7 III is a tempting option for photographers who've been considering a switch to full-frame mirrorless. But how does its image quality stack up? We compare it to the Mark II and a few of its other peers.

Google Lens uses artificial intelligence and 'computer vision' to identify and provide information about businesses, landmarks and other objects using your phone's camera. And now it's available for iPhone users, too.

In the job posting, the Times' describes this role as "one of the most important and high-profile jobs in visual journalism." If you're looking for a high profile job in photojournalism, you could do a lot worse than being Photo Director at The Gray Lady.

According to a recent report out of South Korea, Samsung is increasing production of its ISOCELL image sensors in a bid towards market leadership for image sensors. To reach this goal, Samsung will have to dethrone current market leader Sony... no small task.

In this video, large format photographer Ben Horne shows off the incredible resolving power of 8x10 slide film by pixel peeping a massive 709.6-megapixel drum scan of one of his landscape shots. And you thought 100MP medium format was big...

Photographer Wendy Teal tells the heart-breaking story of a wedding she shot at a hospital on just 24-hours notice. The mother of the bride had been given one week to live, and Wendy responded to the couple's desperate social media plea for someone to capture their special day.

Syrp has announced the Magic Carpet Pro: a slider that offers filmmakers an 'infinitely extendable' range thanks to built-in track levers that let you connect lengths of track without the use of tools.

At CP+ we sat down with executives from several major manufacturers. Among them was Kenji Tanaka, of Sony, who talked to us about the a7 III as well as its plans to attract more pro shooters – without ignoring APS-C and entry-level customers.

How do you shoot macro photography on an 18x24cm large format wet plate camera? You 'connect' two large format cameras together! That's how wet plate photographer Markus Hofstaetter did it, and you can read about the whole process in this article.

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Motorsports photojournalist Jamey Price recently flew to Canada with Lamborghini for the car company's Winter Accademia 2018, where clients get to drive the latest Lamborghini supercars on snow and ice. Yes... it is exactly as awesome as it sounds.

For the Pixel 2 smartphone's Motion Photos feature, Google built on its existing Motion Stills technology by adding advanced stabilization that combines software and hardware capabilities to optimize trimming and stabilization.

"After his camera was stolen from his room in the orphanage, he switched to an iPhone for his photography, reasoning that the image quality of a big, heavy camera was less important than the freedom of a cell phone. 'Quality? Screw it, I’d sketch things with a pencil if I could draw,' he wrote in a blog post."

Chinese manufacturer Vivo has announced some AI-powered Super HDR tech to compete with Google's HDR+ system. Both systems combine multiple images to create a final shot with more dynamic range and less noise, but Super HDR claims to do so more intelligently.

The 'semantic image segmentation model' categorizes every pixel in an image and assigns it a label, such as “road”, “sky”, “person” or “dog.” And now, Google has released its latest version as open source, making it available to any developers whose apps could benefit from the tech.

Fuji's latest firmware update for the GFX 50S adds two new features: a focus stacking mode, and a 35mm format mode that takes 30.5MP photos using the center portion of the camera's medium format sensor.

The crash has raised serious questions about 'startling safety gaps' in the doors-off photo tour industry. After a brief safety video, passengers are strapped in with heavy-duty harnesses and given only a knife to cut themselves loose in case of emergency.

For the first time in five years, Adobe is raising the price of some Creative Cloud subscription packages. The good news for photographers: The $10/month CC Photography plan that includes Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, and Lightroom Classic CC will stay the same.